Is Magnanimity Is Defined By Aristotle And How Virtuousness Separates The Magnanimous From The Pusillanimous And The Vain

In this paper, I will examine Aristotle’s view on how virtuous action differs from that of craft (techne) action due to its issuing from a firm and unchanging disposition, as well as provide Aristotle’s reasoning as to why this is the case. In order to understand the differences between these two types of actions, one must first understand the similarities that both virtuous action and craft action share. Once the common traits of both virtuous and craft action have been examined, it will be possible to gain a better understanding of the differences between the two types of action, and how significant these differences truly are. Finally, once an understanding of both virtuous and craft action has been established, it will then be possible to examine Aristotle’s claim that virtuous action stems from a firm and unchanging disposition and why it is that we must accept this claim to recognize virtuous action for what it is.

In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle view of the 4 kinds of people are accurate. These 4 kinds of people are the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed. First, I will set out Aristotle’s argument about a strong-willed person who struggles to overcome desires, and does it make them morally wrong. Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they are the virtuous, strong-willed, weak-willed, and the vicious persons and his arguments concerning them. Finally, I will set out my own position to support Aristotle’s view.

Wealth causes people to ask the question “How much is too much?” Aristotle believed a person could have too much wealth. He believes it is more important to buy leisure time than inanimate objects. Too much wealth leads a person away from happiness according to Aristotle. Honor is something some people have great amounts of, while others have very little. It is good to be honored and respected in life. Some people, such as political leaders and even actors and actresses are honored more than others. Being overly honored can also cause people to be unhappy since most honored people have people who despise and resent them. Aristotle came to the conclusion that it is far better to be honorable than honored. This brings up the final quality of happiness, EXCELLENCE. This quality is key for human’s pursuit of happiness. Aristotle believes in personal happiness and when defining virtue itself, he used the word “excellence.”

It was Aristotle’s belief that everything, including humans, had a telos or goal in life. The end result or goal was said to be happiness or “eudaimonia”. He explained that eudaimonia was different for each person, and that each had a different idea of what it meant. Further, he said that people must do things in moderation, but at the same time do enough. The theory, of “the golden mean of moderation” was the basis to Aristotle's idea of the human telos and concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all

This is developed during the discussion of virtue in book II of The Nicomachean Ethics. The Doctrine of the Mean originates from two teleological arguments that inaugurate the structure of Aristotle’s moral philosophy: the function reason for virtue and the relapse argument that stands for eudemonia. Aristotle’s The Nicomachean Ethics embarks on the stance that all arguments must in due course be directed towards a single end. This single end is called eudemonia. With comparison to all inferior ends such as pleasure, nobility, and intelligence, eudemonia is pursued for only itself and is autonomous and whole. Although eudemonia is something that can eventually be attained, it should not solely be viewed as an ‘end-goal’. It is a vigorous standing which accompanies good deeds. It is something to be developed over a period of time and preserved. The status should eventually be attributed to life in its entirety. This can be reiterated by one of Aristotle’s eminent sayings: “one swallow does not make a

Magnanimity, combining “the greatness and strength of a lofty and unconquered spirit” with “beneficence and liberality,” promotes justice, by definition,

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

In this paper, I will present a similarity and difference between Aristotle’s concept of a virtuous act and Kant’s discussion of dutiful action. In The Nicomachean Ethics, The source of a virtuous action happens when your passions and thoughts are balanced. It is balanced when there is

In this paper I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia disproves Mill’s utilitarian view that pleasure is the “greatest good.” The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotle’s and Mills views on the value of happiness and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotle’s model of eudaimonia. Then I will present Mill’s utilitarian views on happiness and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mill’s utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia.

In order to explain the fundamentals of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, one must acknowledge his primary motive in this study, which is to understand what it means to live well. Unlike

Aristotle’s theory will be discussed in full length on his theory of virtue. Now Aristotle did believe in a multitude of theories that are all based off of virtue, but also the soul. To Aristotle, virtue is an excellence, which comes after happiness and achieving our final goal. When Aristotle talks about an individual’s final goal and excellence of that

One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.

Unlike happiness, virtue is not an activity, but a disposition and a state of being. More precisely, it is a disposition to behave in the right manner. In Aristotle’s description, virtues are the “means” and intermediate states between what he considers vicious states (excess and deficiency). In other words, they are the moderation of desiring too much and desiring too little. For example, the state of being courageous is considered a virtuous disposition because it moderates the states of being cowardly (deficit) and rash (excess). Furthermore, Aristotle describes the virtuous person as one whose passions and deliberation are aligned; someone whose possession of goodness allows their acts to be guided by the balance of their “means” and their rationality. This means that to achieve a virtuous state one has to consistently aim for the “mean” of their actions to the point where it’s instinctive. (Nic. Ethics II 6).

He is honored to be author of ‘The Nicomachean Ethics,’ which was in fact the 1st book ever written on the subject of ethics. The book is greatly influential, even in modern times. By an analysis of Aristotle’s literature, it can be observed that he primarily focused on preaching to be ‘virtuous’ rather than focusing on the theories of what ‘virtue’ is. According to him, in whatever way we choose to act, some action that is focused on achieving the desired end result or ‘good’ results comes from that person’s own perspective. Aristotle claimed that the maximum good which a person have desire to achieve is basically an end-point itself , a person’s action or struggles is for achieving that ‘end-point’, it may be regarded as a point of maximum satisfaction. Aristotle critically concluded that the happiness of a person satisfies these conditions completely, and hence the highest attainable good is regarded as happiness.

To Aristotle, ethics is not an exact science, it’s ruled by broad generalizations that work most of the time and are found with those of experience, the men of practical wisdom (Nicomachean Ethics, 1094b15-1095a10). We don’t need a focused study in the sciences to understand the good, all one needs is a proper understanding of how the external aspects of life: friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth operate in concert. No aspects of friendship, pleasure, honor, and wealth ought to be practiced too much (excess) or too little (deficient); moral virtue is action performed between two extremes (Nic. Ethics, 1106b5-25). And it is by consultation that one may find the middle ground between excess and deficiency, The Golden Mean (Nic. Ethics, 1097b5-20; Nic. Ethics, 1104a10-25).